6 ms·

I am rereading what you said and I don't see how it either applied to a non signatory nation or proclaims this is illegal, only that it may relate to that claus

by rougka 2y ago

I am rereading what you said and I don't see how it either applied to a non signatory nation or proclaims this is illegal, only that it may relate to that clause Also I fail to understand how being a member of the UN makes each of its conventions a binding law for each member country, can you please explain why?

aspenmayer 2y ago
Israel is a signatory nation as I have laid out in quotes from the West Point article above. Lebanon may or may not be from what I can tell, but that doesn't affect whether or not Israel is bound. I'm willing to believe that the author of the Just Security article knows better than I do on this matter, and is someone who would be in a position to know such things, as well as the author of the West Point article. https://www.justsecurity.org/author/finucanebrian/ https://www.justsecurity.org/author/finucanebrian/ > Brian Finucane (@BCFinucane) is senior adviser with the U.S. Program at the International Crisis Group and a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law. Prior to joining Crisis Group in 2021, he served as an attorney-adviser in the Office of the Legal Adviser at the U.S. Department of State. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/about/team/profile/?smid=12934 https://lieber.westpoint.edu/about/team/profile/?smid=12934 > Air Commodore William H. Boothby retired as Deputy Director of Royal Air Force Legal Services in July 2011. He is Honorary Professor at the Australian National University and also teaches at the University of Southern Denmark and at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy. I'm not trying to appeal to authority here, but these are subject matter experts, and we admittedly both are not, and so I don't really have any reason not to believe their arguments, which are thoroughly sourced. What do you find lacking in their assessment that Israel is bound by Article 7(2)? Do you agree or disagree with their conclusions? Lebanon's status on that matter is somewhat beside the point.
- rougka 2y ago
  My understanding after reading the west point article is that Israel is only bound to the effect of an armed conflict between nations, not against Hezbollah as that is an Annex they haven't signed Furthermore, from the language of the west point article I understand he only states that this (The booby trap clause) is the only part of international law that may apply, not that it actually applies in this case
  - aspenmayer 2y ago
    The booby trap clause as you refer to it binds nations regardless of whether or not the target(s) of the booby traps are themselves nations. Just because you're fighting irregular forces and/or terrorists doesn't give a country license to ignore UN obligations regarding use of weapons. I can see why many may not care about that. I can also see that you do care about this topic and appreciate the discussion. I am glad we aren't using mustard gas today, like we did in World War I. America caught some flak for using shotguns versus Nazi Germany in trench warfare in World War II, which was apparently outlawed at the time. Did the ends justify the means? I don't really like that framing because it denies combatants dignity, whether or not we agree or disagree about whether or not a specific law of war should apply in a given circumstance. Laws of war such as these are not likely enforceable given the limited targeted use of the pagers, but that doesn't mean that laws weren't violated. Furthermore, it represents an escalation of sorts on the Israeli side. I guess I'm trying to reason about your position. Do you find that the pagers don't constitute booby traps, or that Israel isn't bound regardless of whether or not they are booby traps? Or do you find that due to the international non-state actor target of the pager strike, that it logically follows that Israel is not violating any applicable law or treaty because the target isn't themselves party to the same laws? Help me understand your view and position. > He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. > Friedrich Nietzsche Per these links, Israel and Lebanon are bound to Amended Protocol II to my reading: https://disarmament.unoda.org/the-convention-on-certain-conventional-weapons/high-contracting-parties-and-signatories-ccw/ https://disarmament.unoda.org/the-convention-on-certain-conv... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Mines%2C_Booby-Traps_and_Other_Devices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Mines%2C_Booby-Tra... (If you want to reply and find that the 'reply' button is missing, click the timestamp of this comment to reply directly.)
    - rougka 2y ago
      I can sum up my position as this: 1. the original intent of the law was so further away from this scenario that it isn't really applicable in any form. You can see from the first clause that they envisioned a scenario where a soldier is hurt by a booby trapped flag being left in some base. Hence the fact this is part of the mine convention. 2. I am not convinced this actually applies in the legal sense of who signed what and whether these are armed forces at all. Generally intelligence agencies are not bound by international law and regularly do things such as use other armed forces uniforms which is illegal, or simply have non-uniformed paramilitary forces 3. The morale aspect: It is generally accepted among democratic nations that targeted assassinations against terror group members is legal. See US, UK, and a whole bunch of nations that were members of the Afghanistan, Iraq and anti-ISIS coalition. If Israel had went with that route, each of those 3000 houses bombed would lead to many more dead by the surrounding families, similarly to in Gaza. While in this scenario, most were incapacitated in a non-lethal way (although still horrifying, this is war after all). Making this much better than the alternative

by rougka 2y ago

aspenmayer 2y ago

Israel is a signatory nation as I have laid out in quotes from the West Point article above. Lebanon may or may not be from what I can tell, but that doesn't affect whether or not Israel is bound. I'm willing to believe that the author of the Just Security article knows better than I do on this matter, and is someone who would be in a position to know such things, as well as the author of the West Point article. https://www.justsecurity.org/author/finucanebrian/ https://www.justsecurity.org/author/finucanebrian/ > Brian Finucane (@BCFinucane) is senior adviser with the U.S. Program at the International Crisis Group and a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the Reiss Center on Law and Security at NYU School of Law. Prior to joining Crisis Group in 2021, he served as an attorney-adviser in the Office of the Legal Adviser at the U.S. Department of State. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/about/team/profile/?smid=12934 https://lieber.westpoint.edu/about/team/profile/?smid=12934 > Air Commodore William H. Boothby retired as Deputy Director of Royal Air Force Legal Services in July 2011. He is Honorary Professor at the Australian National University and also teaches at the University of Southern Denmark and at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy. I'm not trying to appeal to authority here, but these are subject matter experts, and we admittedly both are not, and so I don't really have any reason not to believe their arguments, which are thoroughly sourced. What do you find lacking in their assessment that Israel is bound by Article 7(2)? Do you agree or disagree with their conclusions? Lebanon's status on that matter is somewhat beside the point.

rougka 2y ago
My understanding after reading the west point article is that Israel is only bound to the effect of an armed conflict between nations, not against Hezbollah as that is an Annex they haven't signed Furthermore, from the language of the west point article I understand he only states that this (The booby trap clause) is the only part of international law that may apply, not that it actually applies in this case
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  The booby trap clause as you refer to it binds nations regardless of whether or not the target(s) of the booby traps are themselves nations. Just because you're fighting irregular forces and/or terrorists doesn't give a country license to ignore UN obligations regarding use of weapons. I can see why many may not care about that. I can also see that you do care about this topic and appreciate the discussion. I am glad we aren't using mustard gas today, like we did in World War I. America caught some flak for using shotguns versus Nazi Germany in trench warfare in World War II, which was apparently outlawed at the time. Did the ends justify the means? I don't really like that framing because it denies combatants dignity, whether or not we agree or disagree about whether or not a specific law of war should apply in a given circumstance. Laws of war such as these are not likely enforceable given the limited targeted use of the pagers, but that doesn't mean that laws weren't violated. Furthermore, it represents an escalation of sorts on the Israeli side. I guess I'm trying to reason about your position. Do you find that the pagers don't constitute booby traps, or that Israel isn't bound regardless of whether or not they are booby traps? Or do you find that due to the international non-state actor target of the pager strike, that it logically follows that Israel is not violating any applicable law or treaty because the target isn't themselves party to the same laws? Help me understand your view and position. > He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. > Friedrich Nietzsche Per these links, Israel and Lebanon are bound to Amended Protocol II to my reading: https://disarmament.unoda.org/the-convention-on-certain-conventional-weapons/high-contracting-parties-and-signatories-ccw/ https://disarmament.unoda.org/the-convention-on-certain-conv... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Mines%2C_Booby-Traps_and_Other_Devices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Mines%2C_Booby-Tra... (If you want to reply and find that the 'reply' button is missing, click the timestamp of this comment to reply directly.)
  - rougka 2y ago
    I can sum up my position as this: 1. the original intent of the law was so further away from this scenario that it isn't really applicable in any form. You can see from the first clause that they envisioned a scenario where a soldier is hurt by a booby trapped flag being left in some base. Hence the fact this is part of the mine convention. 2. I am not convinced this actually applies in the legal sense of who signed what and whether these are armed forces at all. Generally intelligence agencies are not bound by international law and regularly do things such as use other armed forces uniforms which is illegal, or simply have non-uniformed paramilitary forces 3. The morale aspect: It is generally accepted among democratic nations that targeted assassinations against terror group members is legal. See US, UK, and a whole bunch of nations that were members of the Afghanistan, Iraq and anti-ISIS coalition. If Israel had went with that route, each of those 3000 houses bombed would lead to many more dead by the surrounding families, similarly to in Gaza. While in this scenario, most were incapacitated in a non-lethal way (although still horrifying, this is war after all). Making this much better than the alternative